steve2267 wrote:Hey QS, while this will vary with altitude and conditions, have your former colleagues driving Lightnings stated how fast the jet will true out at, at max Mil power setting?

More of a curiosity question than anything. And, of course, may be privileged info...

"In full war equipment operates F-35 effortlessly 10,000 to 15,000 feet higher than our F-16 can, without using afterburner. The speed in 'cruises' is without further 50 to 80 knots higher. " I think it was Dobly that said that. I only have it credited as "Norwegian test pilot"

LtCol Hank Griffiths, who commanded the test squadron at EDW some years back said this on the matter —

“What we can do in our airplane is get above the Mach with afterburner, and once you get it going ... you can definitely pull the throttle back quite a bit and still maintain supersonic, so technically you're pretty much at very, very min[imum] afterburner while you're cruising," Griffiths said. "So it really does have very good acceleration capabilities...”

quicksilver wrote:LtCol Hank Griffiths, who commanded the test squadron at EDW some years back said this on the matter —

“What we can do in our airplane is get above the Mach with afterburner, and once you get it going ... you can definitely pull the throttle back quite a bit and still maintain supersonic, so technically you're pretty much at very, very min[imum] afterburner while you're cruising," Griffiths said. "So it really does have very good acceleration capabilities...”

DT test guy...not prone to spin or hyperbole. Just the facts.

Based on your knowledge and experience, wouldn't "very very min[imum] afterburner" still drink fuel at a rather prodigious rate? (Though far less than max burner.) I am guessing the motor is still burning a substantial amount of fuel more than max Mil. But what does this piston popper know?

Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.

Of course. Using min burner to hold 1.2M vs Mil power to hold .99M is going to be in the ballpark of 2-3 times the fuel flow. Actual Drag may not be as high at 1.2M as would be expected relative to .99M. .99M is near maximum trans-sonic wave drag while 1.2M is usually well on the way back down to the steady supersonic condition. 300% fuel flow for 120% speed? no one is going to think that's a good plan. Even moreso that 0.99M is probably 150% fuel flow compared to 0.93-0.95. Max R and Max Mil can be very different fuel flows for a small change in speed.

quicksilver wrote:LtCol Hank Griffiths, who commanded the test squadron at EDW some years back said this on the matter —

“What we can do in our airplane is get above the Mach with afterburner, and once you get it going ... you can definitely pull the throttle back quite a bit and still maintain supersonic, so technically you're pretty much at very, very min[imum] afterburner while you're cruising," Griffiths said. "So it really does have very good acceleration capabilities...”

DT test guy...not prone to spin or hyperbole. Just the facts.

Based on your knowledge and experience, wouldn't "very very min[imum] afterburner" still drink fuel at a rather prodigious rate? (Though far less than max burner.) I am guessing the motor is still burning a substantial amount of fuel more than max Mil. But what does this piston popper know?

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Of course. Using min burner to hold 1.2M vs Mil power to hold .99M is going to be in the ballpark of 2-3 times the fuel flow.

Isn't that figure a bit high ? The Finnish specs sheet gave around 24.4K lb/h for mil power and some 81K lb/h in afterburner for the F-35A, so in the worst case scenario, minimum afterburner would be close to full afterburner, at 73.2 lb/h or so.

steve2267 wrote:Hey QS, while this will vary with altitude and conditions, have your former colleagues driving Lightnings stated how fast the jet will true out at, at max Mil power setting?

More of a curiosity question than anything. And, of course, may be privileged info...

"In full war equipment operates F-35 effortlessly 10,000 to 15,000 feet higher than our F-16 can, without using afterburner. The speed in 'cruises' is without further 50 to 80 knots higher. " I think it was Dobly that said that. I only have it credited as "Norwegian test pilot"

part from Google Transrate: "...In full war equipment operates F-35 effortlessly 10,000 to 15,000 feet higher than our F-16 can, without using afterburner. The speed in 'cruises' is without further 50 to 80 knots higher. In the F-16, I must use afterburner and take running speed before a missile shot. F-35 "cruiser" both faster and higher. Therefore, I am ready to shoot far anytime.

F-35 also has more fuel than we are accustomed to, it carries the load inside and is not as dependent on afterburner. Therefore we are left with more range than the F-16 and similar aircraft can achieve. "Combat radius" for the F-35 is between 30% and 70% longer than we get with the F-16! The extra range comes in handy in our elongated country. Range may alternatively be replaced in endurance over a given area...."